- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:59:56 -0700
- To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Section 2 intro: Still think should say "content, structure, and presentation" instead of allowing "content" to include all that. Note that the first bullet says: "Separate structure and content from presentation;" and later "...higher level problems of overall design, content, description, etc." In short, if one does a search on "content" and determines if it is used as defined in WCAG definition section leave it alone, otherwise expand to "content, structure, and presentation" as this will emphasize the point made in the aforementioned bullet. In this posting I will make no further reference to instances of "content" in the document, but there are more. 2.3 "...assist the author in generating textual equivalents..." I wonder if we might again spell out the other equivalents like audio or whatever. 2.5.2 Grammar checker should examine this; it's the markup that is known to promote accessibility and the sentence might mean that the tool does it. 2.5.3 And wherever else should end with a "." since the others do; also I think all bullets end with ";"? 2.6.1 I think we "alert to" not "alert of"? 3 "Ensure that the Authoring Tool is Accessible to Authors with Disabilities" I guess I still think this should be "All Authors" instead of "authors with disabilities". The old Universal Design argument. Further on: "...accessible to authors with disabilities" might be "accessible to authors of varying skills, styles, and abilities". Then "2.The authoring tool frequently encompasses the functionality of a user agent or browser and as such should follow the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines. [WAI-USERAGENT]" should make it clearer that this refers specifically (exclusively?) to those functions of the authoring tool that mimic a user agent which is made clearer in 3.1.2 than in the introduction. Perhaps we could use a checkpoint 3.2.3 of priority 3 that provides a display of the document in its full anatomy such as one sees in a browser's "view source document". Some tools make this hard to get to. 3.3 "...There are strategies that make it easier to navigate and manipulate a marked up document" cries out for a link to such strategies. A general formatting recommendation: There should be a blank line between the end of a technique and the presentation of the next checkpoint; in the present format it looks like the technique belongs to the subsequent, rather than the previous checkpoint. I've not gone into the techniques, appendices, etc. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Friday, 30 April 1999 21:59:19 UTC